I phrased that badly in that I understand where you're coming from but I'm not sure I agree. I'd have to think on it more. But no one complains when the reverse happens (naked men for dolce and gabbana cologne ads, etc etc). Fashion in a lot of ways is fundamentally about sex (especially for someone like Tom Ford) so I don't think it's offensive to be direct about that in advertising, in this case.

I don't really have the theoretical vocabulary to back this viewpoint up, though. Maybe I'll look into it tomorrow. I'm just not really convinced that presenting sex as an idea in an ad is objectifying anyone.

Actually lots of people complain when the reverse happens -- but it's not really the same situation due to the fact that Western society is a patriarchy and men hold a lot more power. So "objectifying" a man is not really robbing them of power and maturity in the same way objectifying women is. It's still kinda shitty though. And for the record, I don't think that sex should be removed from fashion or advertising. You're being way too absolutist about this. I just think it kinda sucks because Tom Ford is a super talented guy and I don't think he should have to reduce himself to this, but both as an intelligent businessman and as a homosexual male who has largely been divorced from feminist narrative I can understand why it is the way it is.

Quote:

fwiw, id rather have people associating thin with beauty than dropping dead at 45 of heart attacks because they weigh 500 lbs. ive always felt there's a disconnect between 'the media creates an impossible standard of beauty that distorts women's ability to judge themselves' and 'america is obese'.

But both of these things are true, right? Making people feel shitty about being fat doesn't really stop them from being fat. And yeah, America as a whole is obese, but it's largely quite young women being affected by this who haven't really reached a point in their lives where obesity is an issue. By the time they enter their 30's and beyond, the damage has kinda been done.

KJ, begin watching some of this woman's lecture. It's a really unpretentious, thorough, and articulate look at sexism (directed both at women and men) in advertising. You're right that advertising does perform sexism against men, but it does it to a faaar different extent than it does against women.

And Teger, I'm not sure that I agree with your hypothesis linking socioeconomic standing, degree of media exposure, and obesity. There's many reasons why underprivileged people might "suffer" obesity more so than other socioeconomic groups: food deserts, cost of fresh food vs. processed food (and factoring in what food stamps afford), cultural perceptions of body size (e.g. being larger, as a woman, has been seen as desirable in particular black communities in the country [there was an article about this recently in NY Mag?]), etc.

well, if you look at things from a public health perspective, i have a feeling that you'd find that obesity is far and above more damaging to health (and society) than anything else. and yea, obviously the way to fight obesity isn't by making women insecure about their weight, but i wonder if we'd have even more of an obesity problem if we removed that social expectation?

also i think that people who point to media women perception problem etc. have a hard time really offering significant statistical data in support of their position in line with what you see when talking about obesity. maybe im conflating apples and oranges though.

FWIW I took a few communications classes and never really reached a personal decision on whether I thought ads like this reflected badly on the advertiser; I just think it's an interesting topic and probably fitting for Random Fashion Thoughts, so I'm going to pull an Obama and avoid committing myself to a viewpoint here. Anyway, i think the poor are more exposed to media, or at least television. But to your point - why is Tom Ford getting singled out here? That's basically every fashion designer who's ever bought an ad featuring a woman. Have you ever seen a Dior ad? Or like, any runway model? I tried to watch one of the Ann D runway shows and turned it off after a couple minutes because the models were freaking me out.

I just can't help but feel the body perception thing is along the same lines as the 'video games caused Columbine' argument.

tom ford is getting singled out because you posted his ad, and his ads are perhaps the most egregious 'sexualized' high fashion images you can see. and obviously the advertisers bear the burden of responsibility here. you can say that 'well they're just doing what helps sell their client's products,' but come on, personal (or corporate) responsibility exists on some level.

the better, and more interesting, conversation to me is how bad is this actually? of course it helps create eating disorders, of course it's bad for women's self esteem, but are those things actually harming society?

edit: oh sorry kingjulien, I thought you posted the image. well we're talking about tom ford because that's what posted, but it's implied that every designer that pursues a similar strategy is at fault.Edited by Teger - 5/13/12 at 7:21pm

well, if you look at things from a public health perspective, i have a feeling that you'd find that obesity is far and above more damaging to health (and society) than anything else. and yea, obviously the way to fight obesity isn't by making women insecure about their weight, but i wonder if we'd have even more of an obesity problem if we removed that social expectation?

I understand where you're coming from—and you do acknowledge that making women insecure about their weight doesn't help (which, whew)—but, sadly, the focus of most "anti-obesity" campaigns is body shape. That's pretty fucked up because being "fat" does not mean being unhealthy by any stretch. Any anti-obesity campaign should concern itself with promoting healthy eating, adequate exercise, and good sleeping patterns.

just to clarify (and I'm not 100% sure that I agree with this, just kind of musing):

obviously in a perfect world no person would feel social pressure to look a certain way. and obviously we as a society should work towards removing those pressures, because they're psychologically and physically damaging.

BUT, with all that said, I have a feeling that the consequences of social weight expectations (created by ad campaigns such as the tom ford one above) are far less "bad" than those of obesity. and I have a dark suspicion that the unintended side effect of such social pressures might be a reduction in obesity.

on some level I'm an amoral pragmatist, and if the only way to get people to lose weight is to shame them into it, well, then so be it

How can size-acceptance be either socially or financially damaging? I don't understand.

because size acceptance movements encourage people to stay at their weights, and obesity is a destructive social force. it's a lot harder for someone to say to themselves 'I want to lose weight because I'll love longer,' than 'I want to lose weight because everyone finds me disgusting.' the latter might be ethically and morally reprehensible -- and as I say I wish it didn't work that way -- but I bet it's way more effective than the former.

i know that on some level im espousing 'the ends justify the means'. and i don't like it. it's troubling.

You're conflating weight with health once again. "Healthy" does not mean 185 and 8% body fat.

And again, as I mentioned before in citing that article, the stress that is forced upon those whose body size doesn't fit the beauty-ideal can be far more destructive to their health than the actual weight they have on their body.